In Sickness and in Health
June 4, 2010
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President Emeritus and University Professor of Public Service, The George Washington University
Swans mate for life. On the whole they are more loyal to their mates than are humans: monogamy is a trait they embrace. In most Western traditional marriage ceremonies vows are recited that run, “Do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded spouse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health…?” And in good faith, standing at the altar in front of witnesses, almost everyone replies, “I do.” With a ring, a kiss and a public declaration the compact is sealed, the couple turns, walks up the aisle and begins a life together.
In the professional work world, the announcement of a new senior executive is most often made with somewhat less drama than is the case with weddings. A memo from the chairman, an introduction around the water cooler, a press release to Wall Street and the new person takes over the corner office. Colleges and universities, by contrast, put on a show that rivals crowning a king, queen or pope when a new president is inaugurated. Universities induct presidents with medieval fanfare that includes academic processions, flags and banners, coats of arms, velvet robes and hoods, hats with gold tassels, benedictions, oaths of office, greetings from political leaders and speeches – lots of speeches.
Campuses know how to stage an event. Not surprisingly, the ubiquitous military march by Sir Edward Elgar, “Pomp and Circumstance,” was written for the coronation of King Edward VII, and it has become the tune de rigueur of campuses from coast to coast ever since it was played at Yale in 1905 when Elgar himself received an honorary doctorate. With this type of public pageantry (and expense), it is presumed that the new university president will remain in office for a considerable amount of time. But this is not always the case. What if, only a few years later, a better offer comes along, one with richer and more robust opportunities? What then?
In marriage there are civil and religious protocols for such break-ups: separation agreements, annulments and divorce proceedings. In the professional work world engagements between parties come with a different set of conventions: golden handcuffs to keep one onboard and golden parachutes to “reward” departure. In the end, everyone hopes for the best but sometimes marriages and employment contracts go south. (The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, “…Lester A. Lefton, president of Kent State University, holds a 12-page contract with an eight-page attachment detailing his deferred compensation.”)
As in personal life, business relationships begin with a courtship, a sequence of rituals designed to allow the parties to get to know one another. While transparency is desired, disclosure of short comings are not initially revealed, only gradually do they make themselves visible. On the first date, or initial job interview, it is difficult to discern whether or not the person is an early riser, unable to effectively communicate without a double dose of caffeine or a morning run around the track. On the second date, or meeting with the search committee, eating habits appear, preferences for movies, books, political views, sense of humor, fastidiousness in dress are more apparent. Surface details are now disclosed. As the conversation progresses, a style of behavior is better understood and it becomes evident who is a listener and who is commanding, who bridges disparate views with compromise and who stakes out unchartered territory. Compatibility is rewarded with a ring or a contract.
Couples begin their marriage with the hope that it will last a lifetime –a future will be built together, a household occupied, a family raised, a retirement shared. When the relationship fails, disappointment is felt and remedies are exercised.
What are the comparable expectations in the academic or business world when a president or CEO is hired (or “engaged” to carry this analogy a bit further)? What is it that each side – the candidate for the job and the board of directors or trustees empowered to make a job offer - expects when the final handshake is exchanged to consummate the deal?
Searches for new leaders are time-consuming activities that often include months of committee meetings, public advertisements, resume reviews, interviews with candidates, background research, reference checks, medical check-ups, credit reports and personality tests. And when an employment offer is finally extended for the president of a college, head of a not-for-profit or CEO of a company, and the chosen candidate gives an affirmative response, what does each party think is going to be the term of engagement? Do the words in the contract represent what is in the hearts and minds of the parties?
“She’ll steer us on a steady course for five years."
“I’ll give it a 3-year run and then most likely move on. By then they’ll be ready for a new face in the front office.”
“If we’re lucky, he’ll plant roots in the community and commit to a decade or more of service.”
“This is the capstone of my career, and I hope to stay for the foreseeable future.”
How long is the minimum a leader should commit to an institution in order to complete her/his assignment? Is the 3-year run that President Michael Hogan gave the University of Connecticut too short to accomplish anything substantial and is “the foreseeable future” too long to keep up a growth spurt? Obviously it varies by college, company, individual and boards of overseers. While there is no definite response to the question, there are some predictable discussion points.
New leaders and institutions need time to become acquainted and assess the strengths and weaknesses of each, to outline future goals and methodologies to get from point A to point B. In the academic world, this can take up to a year, for schools of higher education work at a pace that allows time for consultation and shared governance – in a management style that is at the same time inclusive and a bit cumbersome. Academics may be pursuing cutting edge research, writing books that break barriers in their fields of study but they prefer to work in cocoons of comfort, in silos of tradition. Hearing from all sides is labor and time intensive.
Year one for the new university head is a combination of a honeymoon and a listening tour. The president is given considerable latitude to exhibit her leadership and management style; time to assemble a senior team (to keep and/or replace existing cabinet members); to enumerate and stake out her short-term and long-term goals; and begin the refinement and allocation of resources (financial and personnel) to a series of announced proposals. Concurrently, the president also needs to become acquainted with the various constituencies of the organization; the internal and external working environments; the budgetary implications of existing and proposed programs; and the most likely revenue streams and expense lines.
Year two is more concrete, with strategic planning underway; new hires advertised and brought on board; new programs priorities established and given the green light. It is only in Year three that early vision of results is possible and in Year Four the majority of initiatives begins to bear fruit. By Year Five, the cycle begins again – the strategic plan reviewed and continuation of viable priorities, ending of outmoded or inefficient ones, and establishment of additional and viable ones.
The current social style known as ‘speed dating’ allows five minutes of time with each person in a room full of possible hook-ups. Does this have any higher or lower success rate than the long mating rituals of previous decades? One thinks of Malcolm Gladwell’s, “Blink,” which suggests we often learn much about a person in the initial minutes of a first meeting rather than requiring a long courtship. Today’s world seems to be looking for instant gratification and quick results. These are not people who grow asparagus and will wait for three years before harvesting! Good leadership takes time to invest in people and institutions. A thoughtful head of an organization looks down the path and sees various options, with advice she takes a path, adjusts the course on the way, re-adjusts the course as the path continues, begins to reap results, replenishes or replants, continues down the path and sees the harvest bloom. With careful refinement, good leadership will allow an institution to prosper for years to come – like an olive tree. If, however, the roots are disturbed too early or too violently, the tree will wither.
Leaving an institution too soon means that the lifecycle is disrupted and begins again before the harvest is in. Staying at an institution too long means that there may not be adequate refreshment. On the job for two or three years is not enough of a commitment on the part of the leader and is draining of time and resources for the institution.
Recently the minister of Higher Education from another country paid me a visit. He was attending a meeting at the World Bank that is across the street from my office at The George Washington University. Over lunch he asked me know long I thought a president should serve. I replied that twelve years in two six-year terms seemed good to me. He said he was surprised by the reply because he knew I had just completed 19 years at GW. Yes, I said, perhaps a little too long. In any case no individual example can reveal best practices. But one term to plan and another to execute strikes me now in retrospect as sound: and for both - the institution and individual ex-president - a new start, reinvention, renewal and renaissance.
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg is President Emeritus and University Professor of Public Service. He served as the 15th president of The George Washington University for nearly two decades, from 1988 to 2007. He came to GW from the University of Hartford (CT), where he had been president for 11 years. Before assuming the presidency of Hartford, Trachtenberg served for eight years at Boston University as vice president for academic services and academic dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Earlier, in Washington, D.C., he was a special assistant for two years to the U.S. Education Commissioner, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He has been an attorney with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and a legislative aide to former Indiana Congressman John Brademas.
|
